There can be no basketball until the new Collective Bargaining Agreement is approved and in place, and there can be no CBA vote until the NBA union is reformed (remember the “disclaimer of interest”), and that can’t happen until the antitrust lawsuits against the league are settled.

Well, we’ve got the first domino to fall — an agreement to settle the lawsuits was reached Tuesday night, reports Zach Lowe at Sports Illustrated. The players are already getting cards to vote to reform the union, which will come soon.

After that, the union needs to get 260 signatures to reform the union, something they expect by Thursday, reports Marc Stein at ESPN.

The formal vote on the CBA by the players is expected next week, in times for training camps to open on Friday as planned. Basically the dismissal of the lawsuits is tied to all of this, but the settlement had to come first.

Shannon Brown was one of the responsible ones. Not all of the 30 team representative to the NBA players union polled the players before voting on Monday to dissolve the union and take the battle to court. Brown, the Lakers rep, was one of the good ones.

“It has been my goal, throughout my career and even more so during the lockout to be a responsible and active member of our Players Association,” Blake wrote. “With that said, many of the reports published have been inaccurate. I have actively had conversations with my teammates, Player Representatives and the Executive Committee over the past weeks and months about the status of the negotiations and proposals. My stance is simply to make sure we weigh all proposals. I have not made a decision on whether or not a proposal was right to take, just simply encouraging all of our players and representatives to review everything carefully and then make the appropriate choices as a collective body.”

Well said. It may not be true, but well said. Why would I say it may not be fully truthful? Here is what Brown said of Blake in the same article.

“I spoke to (Blake) and he was one of the guys who wanted to take the deal,” Brown said in a phone interview with ESPNLosAngeles.com on Tuesday. “I respect his opinion. I didn’t try to sway it. I gave him the advantages and the disadvantages of taking the deal and not taking the deal. Going into the meeting, I understood that he was one of those people that were for taking the deal.

“I’m not going to say that everybody was for not taking the deal, but I can say it was a majority that was for (turning it down). I can say that much.”

You can make the argument that the players should have voted on David Stern and the owners latest offer. I would make the argument the smart move by the players would have been for player reps to modify Stern’s offer and send it back to him (if for no other reason that make him be the bad guy risking blowing up the season, not you). The players now are making the suggestion that they had no choice but to dissolve the union and take the issues to the court.

Whatever argument you take, know that not all the players are that informed on the issues.

(Shannon Brown) said he knew of player reps trying to reach out to their teammates only to find the phone number they were provided with had been changed or disconnected.

And whatever side you take, know that the union is not a unified front on this. There is a real diversity of opinion. There are a lot more Steve Blakes out there. Whatever his opinion is.

“A lot of people in the league are panicking,” Samuels said. “You’re talking about missing paychecks. Those paychecks you’re missing are going to add up and guys have families and responsibilities and bills to pay. I’m just a guy that’s coming out of college. I’m 22 years old, I don’t have much responsibility.”

Samuels said was in a group of players who didn’t like the latest offer from David Stern and the owners but would have voted for it to get back on the court. We’ll never know how large that group was because the union leadership went another direction, but it felt like that sentiment may have been the majority of the league’s rank and file players.

Among the arguments David Stern warned the union about when talking about decertification was this — the league would try to invalidate all existing contracts if the union decertified. That’s in the league’s pre-emptive lawsuit against the union trying to block decertification.

But can they really? Maybe the better question is, do they really want to? You think Micky Arison wants to void all the contracts of the Heat, or that Oklahoma City wants to void Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook’s deals? I can think of players on all 30 teams where the owners don’t want to risk voiding deals, even if they like the negotiating position.

I would find it very unlikely that the Court would agree with the NBA’s position.

The player contracts in the NBA have guarantees that are laid out with specific language about payment even in the event of release for lack of skill, injury, etc. Unless they make explicit reference to what Stern is referring to — such as the guarantee “not applicable during a strike, lockout or other work stoppage” — I would not anticipate the Court reading that language in nor invalidating the contracts.

Good. So we can move on from this and to important things, like if the union’s “disclaimer of interest” is really a sham.

Usually when you are talking NBA and “disclaimer of interest” we’re talking about Carmelo Anthony and defense.

But now we are talking about the legal process and how by the NBA players union filing a disclaimer of interest they are abandoning their place as the negotiating body for the players in getting a new Collective Bargaining Agreement. It means anti-trust lawsuits and a whole lot more. It’s complex.

NBPA president Derek Fisher and Director Billy Hunter sent out a letter to NBA players, which was obtained by ESPN. Here are a few highlights.

As a result, we will now function as a trade association to assist and support NBA players, but we will
no longer engage in collective bargaining with the NBA owners…

With no labor union in place, it is our sincere hope that the NBA will immediately end its now illegal boycott and finally open the 2011-12 season. Individual teams are free to negotiate with free agents for your services. If the owners choose to continue their present course of action, it is our view that they subject themselves to significant antitrust liability

If you think the NBA is going to open up free agency, then I am a Nigerian prince with a great money-making plan for you. Just email me.

Also as part of this, the union had to withdraw it’s unfair labor practices complaint against the owners with the National Labor Relations Board. Also, the union can no longer regulate agents.

The process is that the union will file its disclaimer and the league will challenge it as a sham and then it is on in court. The two sides will fight a few legal skirmishes and talk big for a month, then probably start to negotiate again to try and save the season.